Is it better to be a soldier or to be a civilian in an all

depends if they bomb your cities desu

well... it depends in which country are you during that time.

Germany and Japan: soldiers were starving in climates where they didn't had proper equipment for; jungle(Japan) and Russian winter(Germany). The civilians weren't in better shape either with the rationing and stuff.

Soviet Union: more or less the same as above, the difference was in the fact that they actually had material... but the soldier were starving as well because Stalin was more concerned with tank manufacturing than feeding the fellows who drove them. As for the civilians...I don't have any account of the rationing system for civilian population, my guess is that the farther, the worst it was.

Italy: awful weapons and rations but no shortage of either. no account for civilan rationing either.

European Allies: the soldiers had loaned weapons(Free France) and questionable food quality(everybody) but quantity of both. the civilian situation zigzaged at best.

USA:.... self-explanatory, unless you were japanese, german or italian.

And all of this without taking in account the firebombings and such. As for WWi, switch italy and japan for austria and the ottomans but italy keeps the same problems(sort of).

it's always best to be a civi in some remote shack.

>noone there to bomb you
>no military will take your shitty shack to repurpose it as HQ or barracks
>you can live off the land better than others
>you can chill with all the deserters and evaders all day

Depends if you were a shitshoveller in Stalingrad or a cocksucker in California.

>>34520426
>USA:.... self-explanatory, unless you were japanese, german or italian.
Individuals of German heritage were not really discriminated against in the US. Many German families had been here before the US existed as a country and in 1900 German was such a common spoken language (2nd only to English) there were even debates similar to the modern debates about the Spanish language in official roles.
Italians were discriminated for being immigrants more than being from a country we were at war with. In WW2, the big enemies were Germany and Japan. People feared Russia more than Italy.

The big reasons why the Japanese were discriminated against were they were very new immigrants, Japan only opened its borders in 1853 and it went through a revolution till 1868, and they were not white (the big reason). Most Japanese descendant Americans were first generation at most and often lived apart from the rest of the country at the time.

The question is not about ww2 but a city in 2017 or village in the middle of 2 armies fighting total war, for example New York, one side is trying to take NY other is trying to defend it


>>34520426
>>34520494
>>34520566

>>34520021
In war, it sucks to be in any military role (you know chances of getting shot rise to Detroit levels). As for being a civilian, it really depends on were you are and how far the war is from you.

As stated before in WW2 (the most recent total war) being a US civilian meant giving up come luxuries, like chocolate. If you were near the front in WW2 as a civilian you were no better off than most military personal.

In the US Civil War, being a civilian meant you had a chance of losing a friend or family member in combat. Maybe having the town or city you live in having all its factories burnt to the ground and you would be forced to feed an occupying army (literally cook them dinner). The worst situation for civilians who were not directly in a combat zone would have been the siege of Vicksburg when food stores ran out.

>>34520591
>Refuges
In "modern" wars, when an army approaches you leave if you can. If you don't you can easily become collateral damage. Again how you do as a refuge depends on were you come from and were you end up.

Another factor in the way wars are starting to be fought are insurgents. Civilans who either as an extension of a power or on their own, decide to join the fight. Insurgents often cause more damage to civilian targets via directly targeting civilian targets or by causing retribution strikes.

I'd rather be a civilian. Ostensibly, there are big penalties for how you're treated by an opposing force, and for waging an insurgent resistance the Hague Convention rules and shit like that don't apply to your tactics.

>>34520021
if you are an american better to be a civie

if you are else where you might as well be dead cos america will come and get you lol

and years latter they will make a film about how the american soilders felt bad about killing you and your family lol

>>34523170
Okay autismo